|
<br />
<br />IKEDA: Okay, I’ve got another stupid question. Have you ever run out of water?
<br />
<br />FREITAS: You know, I did that once, and that was this, I believe it was in February, and to be
<br />honest with you, I didn’t really run out of my water, my wife kind of panicked. My catchment
<br />was still half full, and my wife went oh my god, I have no water, cause we have never, ever had
<br />our catchment half full, and the longest in the 12-14 years we’ve been there now, so when it got
<br />to that point, she kind of freaked out, and she had water brought in, but it never—that’s the
<br />lowest I’ve ever had my water get.
<br />
<br />IKEDA: Okay, now that’s, it’s kind of trying to figure things out because—a, that’s it.
<br />
<br />MIYASATO: Thank you. Commissioners, any further questions? Director, you have any
<br />comments on the concurrency law or the Puna CDP?
<br />
<br />KANUHA: Unfortunately, the concurrency law, you know, is what it is. What I can share with
<br />you is that I’ve been in discussions with Water Supply on this, issues real similar to this, yeah.
<br />And, their posi—you know, because, what our recommendation is based on is on how they
<br />respond to applications that come into our office, and in this case, for rezoning. And, because of
<br />the concurrency requirement, their response has always been that, you know, either they can’t
<br />provide water or they have no plans--and/or they have no plans to extend their system to service
<br />the proposed rezoning application.
<br />
<br />They make no commentary with regard to catchment systems even though, you know, one could
<br />interpret that a private system which can provide water to support the, the land use component,
<br />could serve that purpose. Nevertheless, you know, the strict reading of the law says that, that
<br />private system has to again meet what their standards is which a—you know, kind of gets outside
<br />of, of this particular realm.
<br />
<br />My understanding, though, is that based on what the concurrency requirement is, that’s the only
<br />position they can take, although they really—it’s similar to, if we look at how we would assess
<br />this if it was just a subdivision for a straight number of lots, what Water Supply will do is, is they
<br />again won’t take a position on catchment systems especially in terms of approving the
<br />specifications, you know, how much water, what the components are of the system is. But, I, I
<br />believe there’s some thinking going on within the Department that as long as the area doesn’t get
<br />to a density which would require additional fire protection services, off the record, they would
<br />have no objections to catchment systems. But, their official commentary would be as they’ve
<br />stated for this, this application.
<br />
<br />So, I think it’s an interesting, it’s an interesting situation. What the Applicants have proposed,
<br />you know, if you support the Department’s recommendation, and again it’s only a
<br />recommendation, and whatever action you take would be another recommendation to the
<br />Council, right? The Council would have a, would have the final say on this.
<br />
<br />
<br />8
<br />EXHIBIT A
<br />
<br />
<br />
|